GC Solar 23.61 GW GD Solar 53.65 GW
Technical Article

Deformation of photovoltaic modules due to their own weight

Due to the self-weight of the glass, the center of the photovoltaic panel may sink.

Canal Solar Deformation of photovoltaic modules due to their own weight

Learn more about the deformation caused by the panel's own weight. Photo: Risen Energy/Disclosure

The continuous development of the photovoltaic industry and the evolution of materials and technology have brought considerable advances to products. At the beginning of the 21st century, the power of a single module was only 180 Wp, but now it can reach 700 Wp (see Figure 1). The increase in the power of photovoltaic modules has contributed to the reduction of LCOE (levelized cost of energy) of solar plants and increased the importance of photovoltaic sources among current energy sources.

Figure 1 - Increase in the power of photovoltaic modules in recent years
Figure 1 – Increase in the power of photovoltaic modules in recent years

Since 2019, the size of photovoltaic cells has changed, first from 156,75 mm to 158,75 mm, then to 166 mm and now they have reached 210 mm (Figure 2). With this increase in cells, the size of the modules has also gained significantly (see Table 1).

Figure 2 - Increase in the size of silicon wafers (and cells) over the years
Figure 2 – Increase in the size of silicon wafers (and cells) over the years

The constructive structure of photovoltaic modules is made in layers (see Figure 3). Monofacial modules receive a polymer back coating (backsheet), while bifacial modules can have a transparent polymer or glass back layer.

Figure 3 - Layered structure of the photovoltaic module
Figure 3 – Layered structure of the photovoltaic module

In the monofacial module, the glass represents about 72,3% of the total weight of the panel, while in the bifacial module, the glass (2,0 mm thick) represents about 82,96% of the total weight. Due to the self-weight of the glass, the center of the PV module may suffer sinking, as shown in the simulation result illustrated in Figure 4. The extent of this sinking depends on many factors, the most significant being the area of ​​the panel, the type (mono or bifacial), the angle and the installation method.

Figure 4 – Result of computer simulation of sagging of the photovoltaic module

A study was carried out to evaluate the subsidence of the module. Firstly, we sought to evaluate the influence of the module size. The boundary conditions are shown in Table 2 and Figure 5.

Table 2: Simulation boundary conditions

Type

Height x Width (mm) Area(m2) 

Mono/Bifacial

Installation

Angle

Method

A

1754 x 1096

1.92

Monofacial

30°

Fig. 5(a)

Parafuso

Fig. 5(b)

B

2172 x 1096

2.38

bifacial

C 2172 x 1303 2.83

bifacial

Figure 5 – Installation angle and method

In the simulation, the finite element analysis method was used to simulate the phenomenon of sinking of the center of the module, with the general Lagrange algorithm to calculate the convergence iteration. The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 6.

Table 3: Sinking under different module sizes

Module type

Maximum deformation (mm)

Type A

1,88

type B

3,49

type C

5,58

Figure 6 - Deformation with different module sizes
Figure 6 – Deformation with different module sizes

Through the simulation, it is clear that the sinking of the center of the module due to its own weight is a real problem – and the larger the area, the greater the deformation suffered by the module. Likewise, the amplitude of the sinking of the center also varies with the installation angle. The module with the largest area (type C) is used to simulate the sinking at different installation angles (0°, 15°, 30° and 40°) – as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Different installation angles used with the Type C module sample
Figure 7 – Different installation angles used with the type C module sample

Through simulation, it can be concluded that with a decrease in the installation angle, the phenomenon of sinking in the center of the module becomes more intense. The module installed horizontally (0° angle) suffered the greatest deformation, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 8.

Table 4. Deformations observed with different installation angles

Sample

Installation angle

Maximum deformation (mm)

type C

0°

6,378

15°

6,177

30°

5,581

40°

4,936

Figure 8 - Maximum deformations of the module (type C sample) at different installation angles
Figure 8 – Maximum deformations of the module (type C sample) at different installation angles

To evaluate whether central subsidence can affect the module's energy production, the boundary conditions that suffered the greatest subsidence are adopted, that is, the type C bifacial module with the largest area, installed at 0°, is selected and the test static mechanical load is carried out in accordance with IEC 61215, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 9 - Sample installation for mechanical load testing
Figure 9 – Installation of the sample for mechanical load testing

According to IEC 61215, the static mechanical load test sequence was conducted with 3 cycles, each carried out with a positive pressure of 5400 Pa and a negative pressure of 2400 Pa, as shown in Fig. 10.

Figure 10 - Static mechanical load test
Figure 10 – Static mechanical load test

Two samples were tested in accordance with the IEC 61215 standard and then power degradation was evaluated (with flash test) and EL (electroluminescence) images were obtained to check whether microcracks occurred in the photovoltaic cells after the tests. It is worth mentioning that the dips measured in the test were even greater than those initially assessed through finite element analysis.

From the comparison of the EL images, no microcracks were observed and no other visible flaws were found, as illustrated in Figures 11 and 12.

Figure 11 - EL (electroluminescence) images of sample 1 – before (left) and after (right) the static mechanical load test
Figure 11 – EL (electroluminescence) images of sample 1 – before (left) and after (right) the static mechanical load test
Figure 12 - EL (electroluminescence) images of sample 2 – before (left) and after (right) the static mechanical load test
Figure 12 – EL (electroluminescence) images of sample 2 – before (left) and after (right) the static mechanical load test

Power tests with flash light were carried out to compare the power degradation rate and the results were also satisfactory, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Power degradation after static mechanical load test

Through the results of the analysis carried out, the following conclusions could be obtained:

  1. It is a fact that the modules suffer from sinking, especially in the central region, due to their own weight;
  2. The central sinking of the module is mainly related to the type of module (monofacial – polymeric backsheet or bifacial – glass backsheet), the module area and its installation angle;
  3. The sinking of the bifacial module with two glass sheets (front and rear) is more evident;
  4. The larger the module area, the more pronounced the sinking phenomenon;
  5. The smaller the installation angle, the greater the sinking phenomenon;
  6. A module with the largest surface area was subjected to static mechanical load testing in accordance with IEC 61215, which provides greater sag than can be achieved with the module's own weight. After this test, no reliability problems were found in the two samples tested;
  7. The deformation caused by self-weight does not affect the reliability of the photovoltaic modules, as it is lower than that observed in the static load tests of the two samples analyzed.
Danny Song
About the Author
Danny Song

Product Director at Risen Energy. Master from Fudan University, specializing in materials science and MBA from Shanghai University of Financial and Economic. He has been working in the photovoltaic industry since 2006, being responsible for module R&D in several companies in the Tier 1 sector such as Jinko, Hanwha, etc.

Comments (4)

Comments are moderated before publication.

Comments should be respectful and contribute to a healthy debate. Offensive comments may be removed. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author. Canal Solar.

Leave your comment

  • Ricardo

    Good morning! I have a doubt: due to a structural issue in a solar tracker with 2600mm wide panel rails, when placing the modules, a gap is created or there is a difference between the anchor points of +- 10mm, leaving the module elevated in relation to the anchor point of the switch! My question is whether there are any regulations or recommendations from the manufacturer on the basis of loss in the efficiency of cells that depend on themselves or if they are in the same plan

  • Rodrigo Maia

    The study is very good, but I believe there is a way to solve it is by adding a central cross member to the frame.

  • RENATO PEREIRA ALVES

    Excellent study and publication of the matter. Congratulations to Danny Song for researching and consolidating the subject and to Canal Solar to share.

  • Pompilio Neto

    Over time – 10 and 20 years, wouldn't the subsidence tend to increase and with drying the degradation increase, reducing energy production?

Canal Solar
Privacy

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.